Yascha Mounk and Kara Swisher discuss the role of social media in populist politics and whether online vitriol is an accurate reflection of public opinion.
On tone, I found Swisher hard to listen to so I quit. On substance, she seemed to miss What seems to me the key Problem, which is not the platform that social media gives to already high profile people but the way it amplifies otherwise obscure dangerous lunatics. Cutting off Trump is (arguably perhaps) important not because he wouldn’t have a platform otherwise but because it allows him to assemble a Twitter mob.
A point that was being made is that social media, particularly twitter, by design or by accident, cultivates mobs for anyone to activate. It is the tech equivalent of being addicted to licking a toilet seat. One is free to do so, but one shouldn't be surprised when there are consequences.
I found this episode compelling - Kara made many interesting points and pushed hard on areas that I don't think are emphasized often enough: the problem being about concentration of power more than free speech. But I wish there had been more time for a real debate - it seemed that the conversation switched topics anytime any conflict came up - might we have learned more had there been more time to talk? I think Yascha could have pushed back harder on the topic of defacto public squares for instance. Oh well, good guest, have her back and talk longer!
He could have pushed as hard as he wants. Social media is not a public square. It isn't even arguable. That folks don't understand the nature of the public square, or the commons, is not Kara's issue, it is theirs, and it does a lot to point to the unspoken focus of the issue (to my mind), which is the role of an irresponsible populace.
This was a really good podcast -- but I had to stop about 3/4 way thru because I just could no longer listen to Mounk just keep talking through his guest. She just kept trying to say things in some kind of long form and he just kept talking and talking. Too annoying for me.
I experienced the conversation as contentious at times, but it seemed to me Mounk was trying to finish his thought without being interrupted as much as the other way around.
Just what we need: more of our society given over to the Plaintiff's Bar. Nah. Typical progressive reaction: open the floodgates for the attorneys, add more cost to business, and create products that are designed by lawyers, for nobody. Pass.
Also, Swisher's dishonesty in not admitting that Facebook and Twitter ARE defacto public squares is maddening. We all know technically, they are not, but, in fact, they are.
I'd actually be open to creating a federally protected and funded "true" public square, free of all but the most vile and dangerous speech, as defined by SCOTUS, but my guess is the left will pass on it - they already have a stranglehold on speech and most mainstream media. Why give it up when the de facto public square is already in the hands of your ideological allies?
Finally, the fucking Bernie meme was NOT fun for everyone. Dressing up and softening a crusty old Bolshevik to be a cute grandpa is repugnant to me, and an insult to the memories of all those who have died under the boot of socialism, democratic or not. The only version of that meme I could stomach was the one with him apparently in the belly of a massive snake.
All products are designed by lawyers. You just want them designed by yours. Pass.
Please do proceed to argue that a privately held communication platform is a public square. I am curious how that "private" equates to "public". As such a socialist, your animus toward Bernie seems off-point. Pick a position already!
I love this conversation. I love what Swisher said about Twitter. It IS a platform designed to capitalise on anger and it’s not a platform that encourages unlike minds to get to know each other and thoughtfully debate. I like the idea of clearer guidelines on Twitter. Ones that are less random and can discourage the obvious offences. Makes sense. It is a public square in practice but in reality a private sphere. Humans are humans and we do like to fight, so true! Twitter can have sensible guidelines to stop the worst kind of fighting but for thoughtful conversation we need to go elsewhere. Which is why places like Persuasion are so important.
If you are suggesting that every issue should be pursued through Oxford style debate, you might do well to move to Oxford. It isn't how policy is decided, and even if it were, not everything one decides, is suited to that format. You need two credible sides.
It is also notable that only one and five adults in the US even use twitter. I don't know that this point gets enough attention.
If one is in the social media bubble, and experiencing its effects, either benign or malign, one is in the vast minority of the adult population.
https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/
On tone, I found Swisher hard to listen to so I quit. On substance, she seemed to miss What seems to me the key Problem, which is not the platform that social media gives to already high profile people but the way it amplifies otherwise obscure dangerous lunatics. Cutting off Trump is (arguably perhaps) important not because he wouldn’t have a platform otherwise but because it allows him to assemble a Twitter mob.
A point that was being made is that social media, particularly twitter, by design or by accident, cultivates mobs for anyone to activate. It is the tech equivalent of being addicted to licking a toilet seat. One is free to do so, but one shouldn't be surprised when there are consequences.
I found this episode compelling - Kara made many interesting points and pushed hard on areas that I don't think are emphasized often enough: the problem being about concentration of power more than free speech. But I wish there had been more time for a real debate - it seemed that the conversation switched topics anytime any conflict came up - might we have learned more had there been more time to talk? I think Yascha could have pushed back harder on the topic of defacto public squares for instance. Oh well, good guest, have her back and talk longer!
He could have pushed as hard as he wants. Social media is not a public square. It isn't even arguable. That folks don't understand the nature of the public square, or the commons, is not Kara's issue, it is theirs, and it does a lot to point to the unspoken focus of the issue (to my mind), which is the role of an irresponsible populace.
This was a really good podcast -- but I had to stop about 3/4 way thru because I just could no longer listen to Mounk just keep talking through his guest. She just kept trying to say things in some kind of long form and he just kept talking and talking. Too annoying for me.
I experienced the conversation as contentious at times, but it seemed to me Mounk was trying to finish his thought without being interrupted as much as the other way around.
That is a legitimate point of view -- but Mounk is the host. I wanted to hear the "expert."
Just what we need: more of our society given over to the Plaintiff's Bar. Nah. Typical progressive reaction: open the floodgates for the attorneys, add more cost to business, and create products that are designed by lawyers, for nobody. Pass.
Also, Swisher's dishonesty in not admitting that Facebook and Twitter ARE defacto public squares is maddening. We all know technically, they are not, but, in fact, they are.
I'd actually be open to creating a federally protected and funded "true" public square, free of all but the most vile and dangerous speech, as defined by SCOTUS, but my guess is the left will pass on it - they already have a stranglehold on speech and most mainstream media. Why give it up when the de facto public square is already in the hands of your ideological allies?
Finally, the fucking Bernie meme was NOT fun for everyone. Dressing up and softening a crusty old Bolshevik to be a cute grandpa is repugnant to me, and an insult to the memories of all those who have died under the boot of socialism, democratic or not. The only version of that meme I could stomach was the one with him apparently in the belly of a massive snake.
All products are designed by lawyers. You just want them designed by yours. Pass.
Please do proceed to argue that a privately held communication platform is a public square. I am curious how that "private" equates to "public". As such a socialist, your animus toward Bernie seems off-point. Pick a position already!
I love this conversation. I love what Swisher said about Twitter. It IS a platform designed to capitalise on anger and it’s not a platform that encourages unlike minds to get to know each other and thoughtfully debate. I like the idea of clearer guidelines on Twitter. Ones that are less random and can discourage the obvious offences. Makes sense. It is a public square in practice but in reality a private sphere. Humans are humans and we do like to fight, so true! Twitter can have sensible guidelines to stop the worst kind of fighting but for thoughtful conversation we need to go elsewhere. Which is why places like Persuasion are so important.
If it were a public square in practice, Trump would still be tweeting.
Why should she have read it?
If you are suggesting that every issue should be pursued through Oxford style debate, you might do well to move to Oxford. It isn't how policy is decided, and even if it were, not everything one decides, is suited to that format. You need two credible sides.